A Climate Hero.

[Cardinal Carminative]

You have to exclude the urban temperature stations and use the high variability solar output dataset to see it.

Why? If urban temperature stations have been shown MULTIPLE TIMES to not affect the overall quality of the temperature data why do I need to exclude them? Because YOU found ONE article by Willie Soon that says otherwise?

I know you believe that red line will continue like that but it won't. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world.

No. You are simply wrong.

 

[haveatit]

You idiots keep claiming that the Earth is fragile. It isn't. It is amazingly robust and capable of dealing with anything we can throw at it. If you truly cared about the planet, instead of wasting all of this money on bullshit fraudulent "research", you would be clamoring for a anti bolide defense system. An asteroid impact actually DOES have the ability to end life on this planet.

And it is the mere fact that twice, life has indeed almost ended from an asteroid impact, yet rebounded to the amazing variety that we enjoy today, that PROVES your inane crap to be just that.

Crap.

I see that toodsterparrot liked your reply. You are both fools. Sure, we can't completely destroy all life on earth. Eventually it will rebound. But what good will that do when the only remnants of humans will be as fossils.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It probably has something to do with the 50 million year trend of cooling.

I am surprised. I thought engineers were more savvy with signal processing and deconvolving overlapping functions.

Did you just opt to ignore higher frequency signals?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I would distance myself from them too if I were you. Tuning out natural variations is circular logic.

So you admit you can't show me any models put out by the IPCC itself?

Got it. I'm still curious why you talk about them so much. Are they super-secret and only YOU know about them?

Or could it be like so many other things so far you simply are mistaken?

 

[haveatit]

No it doesn't. The very reason we know that modern warming is largely due to human activity is because of paleoclimate studies.



Every single one of which is known to and studied by the very experts you disagree with.




That's just wrong. What do you think the AMOC and the Gulf Stream do? They carry warm water up to the north Atlantic.

You might wish to check with more experts who study this sort of thing:

Ocean currents

Ocean water is on the move, affecting your climate, your local ecosystem, and the seafood that you eat. Ocean currents, abiotic features of the environment, are continuous and directed movements of ocean water. These currents are on the ocean’s surface and in its depths, flowing both locally and...

www.noaa.gov

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that ANYONE thinks that CO2 is the ONLY driver for temperature on the earth and in the earth's history. It is not. It is far from it.

And there are no experts who think that it is.

I think ding is just yanking your chain. Or poking at you through the bars of a cage with a stick to get a reaction out of you. You have much real science behind you. Ding has a nearly inexhaustible supply of bullshit and pseudoscience behind him. In any debate with him, you are wasting your time. But if you choose to keep debating him, my advice would be to keep it simple. Stick to the basics. And don't let him sidetrack you. You will gain more of an advantage there.

 

[haveatit]

The guy had to be mentally ill. What a waste.

Mentally ill is questionable. A waste? Certainly. As if his sacrifice could even begin to compare to the machine messiah known as television. It is like a flea trying to knock down a skyscraper.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I think ding is just yanking your chain.

Possibly. But ding apparently has a science background of some sort and it is intriguing why he is so selective of his points while not actually delving into any of them to any depth.

Or poking at you through the bars of a cage with a stick to get a reaction out of you.

It happens from time to time.

But if you choose to keep debating him, my advice would be to keep it simple. Stick to the basics. And don't let him sidetrack you. You will gain more of an advantage there.

I think you are 100% correct.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure, we can't completely destroy all life on earth.

Why not?

 

[Orangecat]

I wish I could tell you. But your masters only allow one side of the debate.

You think I’m enslaved to liberal social media platforms? Strange conclusion, that.

 

[ding]

Again, you have been shown your error. The ocean currents pump heat up to the Arctic.

It really feels like you are unfamiliar with ocean currents and the complexity of the ocean. That's understandable but to just wave your hands and make that statement isn't technically correct and doesn't really have any meaning.




That is a LOT of hand-waving. Nothing particularly meaningful to the discussion. Just broad brush listing of climate forcings.

What error? The planet cooled for all the reasons I listed. And did so with a higher radiative forcing value for CO2 than today.

The bottom line is the earth has a 50 million year track record of cooling itself through natural processes. In part due to the fact of the earth's unique landmass configuration that affects ocean circulation. Specifically isolated polar regions.

It's a amazing that you totally dismiss the natural dynamic processes which work to cool the earth.

• evaporative cooling, cloud reflection
• decreasing water vapor from cloud formation
• decreasing water vapor in the upper troposphere
• increased heat flow into outer space and increased ocean mixing sequestering extra heat in the deep ocean.

 

[ding]

Why? If urban temperature stations have been shown MULTIPLE TIMES to not affect the overall quality of the temperature data why do I need to exclude them? Because YOU found ONE article by Willie Soon that says otherwise?

Your guys use urban temperature station data. It's not valid due to the higher concentration of concrete and electricity use.

 

[ding]

No. You are simply wrong.

You can see it with your own eyes.

 

[ding]

I am surprised. I thought engineers were more savvy with signal processing and deconvolving overlapping functions.

Great. Walk me through it then. Here's the temperature data.

 

[ding]

Did you just opt to ignore higher frequency signals?

Such as?

 

[ding]

So you admit you can't show me any models put out by the IPCC itself?

Got it. I'm still curious why you talk about them so much. Are they super-secret and only YOU know about them?

Or could it be like so many other things so far you simply are mistaken?

This is hilarious. Please tell me you aren't arguing the IPCC doesn't publish model results and that their models don't use urban temperature stations which are affected by higher concentrations of concrete and electricity use.

So just to humor you... I can't show any models used or relied upon by the IPCC. I know they rely on models and that those models use urban temperature station which skews the results.

 

[ding]

I think ding is just yanking your chain. Or poking at you through the bars of a cage with a stick to get a reaction out of you. You have much real science behind you. Ding has a nearly inexhaustible supply of bullshit and pseudoscience behind him. In any debate with him, you are wasting your time. But if you choose to keep debating him, my advice would be to keep it simple. Stick to the basics. And don't let him sidetrack you. You will gain more of an advantage there.

I have the ability to explain the earth's climate in an easy to understand way. That scares you guys. But that's a really nice narrative you are working on.

 

[haveatit]

Why not?

Life is known to exist thousands of feet below ground. How could we get at it to destroy it. Biological life is extremely resilient. It even exists in thermal vents in the deepest parts of the ocean and has also been found on the reactors of nuclear cores. I don't think we could completely destroy life if we tried.

 

[ding]

Life is known to exist thousands of feet below ground. How could we get at it to destroy it. Biological life is extremely resilient. It even exists in thermal vents in the deepest parts of the ocean and has also been found on the reactors of nuclear cores. I don't think we could completely destroy life if we tried.

But you believe humans will be gone in 30 years, right?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The planet cooled for all the reasons I listed. And did so with a higher radiative forcing value for CO2 than today.

Those are what are called "negative forcings" and sometimes they are larger than positive forcings like CO2.

The reason YOU know ANYTHING about the earth's climate history is because of the very same research that tells you that the CURRENT warming is NOT dominated by natural forcings.

The bottom line is the earth has a 50 million year track record of cooling itself through natural processes.

I honestly don't know why you think that matters. If you had read ANY of the IPCC you'd note that most of those negative forcings are KNOWN AND DISCUSSED at length. The problem is that they cannot be lined up to explain the warming we see today.

You seem to think that because there are negative forcings and they once aligned in such a way as to be larger than a high CO2 content that somehow human activities can NEVER be more than the negative forcings.

This is simply mathematically ignorant. OF COURSE they can!

In part due to the fact of the earth's unique landmass configuration that affects ocean circulation.

And that landmass configuration has changed and impacted climate before. As for the ocean circulation clearly you are not familiar with the TECHNICAL DETAILS of said circulation.

Specifically isolated polar regions.

So you are of the opinion that this is why human activity cannot warm the globe? Or what, specifically?

Because right now most of the earth's experts in this topic say YOU are wrong.

It's a amazing that you totally dismiss the natural dynamic processes which work to cool the earth.

I have never denied that. I have EXPLICITLY discussed them.

I really am kind of confused how oversimplified you want this all to be. I haven't met many engineers who so easily dismiss complexity of systems that they don't understand very well.

• evaporative cooling, cloud reflection
• decreasing water vapor from cloud formation
• decreasing water vapor in the upper troposphere
• increased heat flow into outer space and increased ocean mixing sequestering extra heat in the deep ocean.

Are you honestly of the opinion that YOU ARE THE FIRST PERSON TO THINK OF THESE FORCINGS? I must again point you to the literature which has discussed these very things for DECADES.

And, again, the earth's experts disagree with you.

Either you are the smartest man to walk the earth or you are mistaken.

What do YOU believe is the case?

 

[haveatit]

You think I’m enslaved to liberal social media platforms? Strange conclusion, that.

I said that your masters only allow one side of the debate. You can believe it.